Convince me about a planned economy

[Spion]

Yes, well all those councils and meetings are enough to turn anyone off Participation sounds great until you're forced into a room with people.

Somebody really needs to think about how the leaps forward we've had in communications and information handling we've seen over the past decade and a bit could be applied to running society cooperatively

 

[Brainaddict]

It's not at all clear what status property has in this Parecon idea.

IMO, a planned economy is inseparable from the abolition of private property in the means of production. If it's not, then the economy is not planned - individual corps may plan but private ownership will mean competition and therefore the economy will not be planned at all

Parecon has the same stance as you - it says ownership of the means of production must be collective.

It still sounds rubbish to me. Though I'd be interested to see medium-scale experiments done with it - perhaps one town for a year or that kind of thing.

 

[Spion]

perhaps one town for a year or that kind of thing.

Couldn't work. It needs to be done on the widest possible scale. Trying to make a small area self sufficient is futile and retrogressive today, IMO. Not to mention utopian - how many businesses will willingly cede ownership?

 

[Brainaddict]

Somebody really needs to think about how the leaps forward we've had in communications and information handling we've seen over the past decade and a bit could be applied to running society cooperatively

My housemate thinks about it - he was telling me about it the other night - he regards collective decisionmaking problems as essentially technical problems with technical solutions But you're right, not many people do really consider the implications of new technology.

 

[Brainaddict]

Couldn't work. It needs to be done on the widest possible scale. Trying to make a small area self sufficient is futile and retrogressive today, IMO

I was thinking more of a test to see if it would send everyone involved utterly insane with the meetings, the bureacracy and the tedium, or to see if they ended up starving to death. I'm not sure ' the widest possible scale' is a good idea for an experiment that might have these outcomes

 

[kyser_soze]

The only way you'll ever get a really effective planned economy is when manufacturing capability is decentralised and no longer relies on creating specific machines to build specific products. Once you've got some kind of Von Neuman machine going on, you don't need to plan anything other than resource use, people can choose for themselves what they want.

On Parecon...the whole concept of ownership is what needs to be questioned I reckon, and that extends to planned economies.

 

[Spion]

I was thinking more of a test to see if it would send everyone involved utterly insane with the meetings, the bureacracy and the tedium, or to see if they ended up starving to death. I'm not sure ' the widest possible scale' is a good idea for an experiment that might have these outcomes

I don't think it'll happen anyway, except as a large scale solution to economic crisis/war in capitalism when that system proves incapable of working (to those in the rich countries, rather than the impoverished swathes of the globe who already pretty much know that).

Re going insane with meetings etc, I think a) that's a preferable option to the wars, death, starvation and waste that the current system creates b) it should be possible to harness the latest comms and means of information handling to planning c) I think the whole process would become easier over time, with major chunks of life's needs produced almost routinely and with debate occurring most vigorously over innovation

 

[Spion]

On Parecon...the whole concept of ownership is what needs to be questioned I reckon, and that extends to planned economies.

Que?

 

[weltweit]

I am intrigued that there seems to be a whole page worth of posts in favour of some kind of state controlled planned economy. That the last times it was tried or a semblance of it was tried have failed so dismally does not seem to put people off.

The questions of what you would plan? who would be in charge of planning what? how would waste shortages and excess be avoided? and how would development and innovation be promoted? all seem to be being ignored.

It seems it is enough that the means of production are presently in private hands that motivates people to feel favourably towards some kind of planned economy. Well that I suppose is one reason but if it is then lets be honest about it.

 

[gorski]

May I refer the Right honourable member to the reply I gave some posts ago...

All developed Capitalist economies are no longer free-for-all, nasty, early Cap!

Even the Neo-Libs are agreeing with a number of measures of...

Anyway, read carefully, please...

Then, see the references...

And then - live with it!

 

[Spion]

I am intrigued that there seems to be a whole page worth of posts in favour of some kind of state controlled planned economy. That the last times it was tried or a semblance of it was tried have failed so dismally does not seem to put people off.

The last times it was tried it was started in a country where only 25% of the people could read, where the vast bulk of the population were impoverished peasant farmers and the consequent political degeneration that occured saw planning fall into the hands of a narrow clique (ie, Stalin's) who ensured planning stayed out of the hands of the masses so they could retain privilege. And without involving the mass of the population planning can only succeed in providing heavy industrial requirements and is doomed to fail to meet people's needs.

We live in a time and place in which we are able to handle and communicate information in ways that were undreamable for most of the last century. I think that's quite a difference

 

[mk12]

I agree with that - keeping power firmly in democratic organs is the best way to stop that (degeneration of revolution in russia 1917 onwards) happening again. Centrally planned economics by a minority is not drastically different from capitalism.

 

[weltweit]

May I refer the Right honourable member to the reply I gave some posts ago...

All developed Capitalist economies are no longer free-for-all, nasty, early Cap!

Even the Neo-Libs are agreeing with a number of measures of...

...

I assume you mean this post:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5938178&postcount=41

Well I have read it and followed some of the links.

You appear to be keen on how free markets have been developed into regulated markets and I accept that free markets have failed to provide stability and decent standards of living for the masses. Currently in Europe we have legislation on discrimination, on health and safety, on product standards, the CE mark, on patent law, trades unions, the minimum wage and the suchlike all of which are attempts to tame the otherwise red in tooth and claw free market.

An additional reason that free markets are unacceptable is that they do not resemble the economist idea of perfect markets and probably never will. In fact much of the way that companies can become competitive is still by exploiting the actual imperfections in markets for competitive advantage.

That said, the markets that we have are still to a large extent evolving things, self regulating and adapting phenomena, like a rainforest, with organisms (companies and people) continually struggling to find a best fit with the ever changing commercial environment that will permit them to succeed in the very basic stuggle for survival that is a market.

 

[weltweit]

The last times it was tried it was started in a country where only 25% of the people could read, where the vast bulk of the population were impoverished peasant farmers and the consequent political degeneration that occured saw planning fall into the hands of a narrow clique (ie, Stalin's) who ensured planning stayed out of the hands of the masses so they could retain privilege. And without involving the mass of the population planning can only succeed in providing heavy industrial requirements and is doomed to fail to meet people's needs.

So you don't accept that Soviet Russia, china and North Korea are valid experiments in a planned economy?

We live in a time and place in which we are able to handle and communicate information in ways that were undreamable for most of the last century. I think that's quite a difference

Yes we have modern communications.

Yet the most basic and quite democratic method we have to communicate demand is and remains money, whether notes and coins or plastic. When we buy something with money we are making a vote of confidence in it, the act of buying tells the seller and the maker that you approve of their product or service.

If people stop buying drinking yogurt products tommorrow, if they stop voting with their money, the supermarkets will quickly see this and stop stocking it and the manufacturer will stop making it.

We vote, democratically, with our every day shopping habits.

 

[Spion]

So you don't accept that Soviet Russia, china and North Korea are valid experiments in a planned economy?

No. They were incomplete. Planned but not democratic, which just doesn't work - it's worse than the market in many respects

Yet the most basic and quite democratic method we have to communicate demand is and remains money, whether notes and coins or plastic. When we buy something with money we are making a vote of confidence in it, the act of buying tells the seller and the maker that you approve of their product or service.

And by exactly the same mechanism large swathes of the world lack basic amenities, healthcare, sanitation etc etc that we take for granted because it's simply not *profitable* to use resources in this way. That's just one aspect of course. Living simply by the profit motive brings us wars, pollution, consumerism - I could go on. I think you'll see that my point is that the vast bulk of our species have little interest in furthering a system that only serves to enrich a tiny minority of the planet's population

 

[weltweit]

... And by exactly the same mechanism large swathes of the world lack basic amenities, healthcare, sanitation etc etc that we take for granted because it's simply not *profitable* to use resources in this way. That's just one aspect of course.

I am not sure it is the fault of the market that countries who have not developed as we in the west have, do not have as good a standard of living.

Living simply by the profit motive brings us wars, pollution, consumerism - I could go on. I think you'll see that my point is that the vast bulk of our species have little interest in furthering a system that only serves to enrich a tiny minority of the planet's population

Again I am not sure that the market can be blamed for wars, world war two was caused by a manic in Hitler trying to build an empire for lebensraum, the conflicts around the cold war, Vetnam and Korea were about the battle between two ideologies Capitalism and Communism fought by proxy in those contries because neither the USSR nor the US could afford to fight it out head to head because of MAD. The conflict in the former Yugoslavia was about religious and racial hatred, the troubles in Northern Ireland were about religious and sectarian hatred. Iraq was we are told about WMD or regime change but it may well also have been about oil. Indeed I am hard pushed to think of a war that was about the market.

A system that only serves to enrich a tiny proportion? well a tiny proportion are very well rewarded for taking on lot of risk that is certainly true (however a lot of people fail) but also the majority in Britain now enjoy quite a good standard of living compared wth countries that have not developed a viable market system.

The trouble is Spion that you are talking to someone that is so steeped in the market that I find it hard to conceive of any viable alternative. I love the way that markets develop, innovate and change, that the individual participants in them are locked into a very real struggle for survival every bit as fantastic and bloody as evolution by natural selection and it can be very rewarding to be a part of that almost natural struggle.

When I look at the difference in products and services that West Germany managed to achieve instead of East Germany I cannot help but think that West Germany was the better system.

Indeed, as an aside: when the border went up between the two Gemanys there was a BMW motorcycle factory annexed into the east. At the time they were making a world war two style of motorcycle, a horisontally opposed twin in the style of BMW. When the wall and the border came down all those years later and East and West Germany reunitied, the former East German factory was still making the very same motorcycle! They had not developed nor improved the design one bit, (It had just been renamed as the cossack). It was as if time had stood still over there, no competitive discipline, no investment, no development, no innovation, absolutely no progress.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I am not sure it is the fault of the market that countries who have not developed as we in the west have, do not have as good a standard of living.

Lack of exploitative opportunities:

Poor countries don't have even poorer countries to fuck over like we did.

 

[Spion]

Lack of exploitative opportunities:

Poor countries don't have even poorer countries to fuck over like we did.

more to the point is that our ancestors consciously broke up existing economic patterns and ways of life and destroyed indigenous industry in the lands they conquered and forced people into working in plantations, mines etc.

That was just a quick answer, btw. I'll be back to answer Weltweit later

 

[gorski]

Das Kapital, I volume, last chapter, I believe...

 

[Spion]

Das Kapital, I volume, last chapter, I believe...

Dude, if you've read all these books why not chip in with the products of your learning rather than act as a human bibliography?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Lack of exploitative opportunities:

Poor countries don't have even poorer countries to fuck over like we did.

It's not that simple. They started miles behind so they have to catch up. Some are better equipped than others to do this.

 

[gorski]

Dude, if you've read all these books why not chip in with the products of your learning rather than act as a human bibliography?

Where's the fun [for you] in that?

Seriously speaking, though: I do - every so often - and I don't mince my words.

But when it's quite complex - nope, not gonna bastardise it!

Also, when I have written aplenty already and somebody is not willing to give it a go for being lazy or so - not saying it's you but it happened before - not gonna indulge people beyond a certain limit.

No mystery...

 

[abernites]

but we already have a planned economy,it is planned for us by capitalists instead of communist.
the whole concept of profit motivation is a myth given that 99% of the working population are wage earners and not profit makers.
The "planning" in a capitalist economy comes into play when it uses every method at it's disposal(the media,physical threats(police state)..to beguile the population into getting up in the morning and produce the wealth that keeps the mega rich even richer and everybody else plodding on.
the whole idea of "free markets " is stunningly hilarious,it doesn't exist,its a myth perpetuated by the economy we live in.Markets are controlled by a small proprtion of the earths population,throughout history this has been to the detriment of mankind and human potential,but now this control is threatening the very planet we live on.
abernites

 

[Spion]

Again I am not sure that the market can be blamed for wars, world war two was caused by a manic in Hitler trying to build an empire for lebensraum

Germany was a late developed capitalist state. While domestically its industry was very advanced, it had missed out on creating a colonial empire, so twice in the century it sought to conquer parts of Europe as its empire. Additionally a key raison d'etre was the destruction of the planned economy of the soviets. The nazis were bankrolled by large-scale German capital

the conflicts around the cold war, Vetnam and Korea were about the battle between two ideologies Capitalism and Communism fought by proxy in those contries because neither the USSR nor the US could afford to fight it out head to head because of MAD.

Once again, at root the capitalist west fought to destroy the USSR and its satellites because it represented a no-go area for capital, by dint of its planned economy and abolition of capital

The conflict in the former Yugoslavia was about religious and racial hatred, the troubles in Northern Ireland were about religious and sectarian hatred.

The Croats and Slovenes broke away from the rest because they were more wealthy republics and former bureacrats saw the chance to enrich themselves by becoming capitalists. Whether you were protestant or catholic in N Ireland determined your access to resources.

Iraq was we are told about WMD or regime change but it may well also have been about oil.

Exactly, it was about oil and and the detruction of Iraq's tariff barriers to foreign capital

Indeed I am hard pushed to think of a war that was about the market.

I'm not. As you can see. In every conflict you have to examine the economics, IMO.

A system that only serves to enrich a tiny proportion? well a tiny proportion are very well rewarded for taking on lot of risk that is certainly true (however a lot of people fail) but also the majority in Britain now enjoy quite a good standard of living compared wth countries that have not developed a viable market system.

Many of those countries will take a long time to develop such a thing, if ever, because they were locked into the world capitalist system in very specific ways - eg colonies in Africa which were forced to be mineral or agricultural exporters, and now have economies that are completely skewed to this

The trouble is Spion that you are talking to someone that is so steeped in the market that I find it hard to conceive of any viable alternative. I love the way that markets develop, innovate and change, that the individual participants in them are locked into a very real struggle for survival every bit as fantastic and bloody as evolution by natural selection and it can be very rewarding to be a part of that almost natural struggle.

Yes, it's fascinating. But we live in a tiny oasis of wealth, much of which is creamed off the labouring classes here and abroad. I think you must be very much at the heart of this oasis too. Most people just want to live a decent life and not have to struggle just to live, or to live beyond 40, or to have their kids get an education. The idea that the good things humans do can only be motivated by making loads of money is a myth, IMO

 

[gorski]

I'm afraid S. is closer to the truth when it comes to ex-YU... It was about power and all it entailed and all else was just a thin veneer...

 

[weltweit]

I'm afraid S. is closer to the truth when it comes to ex-YU... It was about power and all it entailed and all else was just a thin veneer...

But how does that explain the horrors of ethnic cleansing carried out by christian serbs (iirc) against muslim Bosnians?




[btw. we are getting quite a bit away from planned economies]

 

[gorski]

Not simple. You should really study the subject carefully - not to be bastardised like this, in a simple, short post on a forum of this sort.

However, it was an "excuse", rather than the reason, crudely speaking...

Anything would have done if only those vying for power would get more or retain what they had.

Ethnicity, confession etc. - not bloody essential at all!

That is not to say that those "bellow", exercising the most horrid things one can imagine couldn't have at least partly believed it...

 

[sleaterkinney]

How do you explain all the wars before capitalism then?

 

[Spion]

But how does that explain the horrors of ethnic cleansing carried out by christian serbs (iirc) against muslim Bosnians?




[btw. we are getting quite a bit away from planned economies]

No that far actually. It went like this:

Bureaucrats running the planned econom(ies) of the federal Yugoslav state increasingly saw the chance to put their amassed wealth on a secure - private property - footing. This happened at different rates because the federal republics had developed differently economically. The wealthy republics' leaderships wanted to break away from the less developed (Serb) centre to do this. Serbia resisted because its bureaucrats - with somewhat national reach - wanted to retain that power/resource base. The masses were mobilised behind the local nationalisms that represented the new seceded states the local bureaucrats saw as their booty. There were also very real rewards for those on the ground who ethnically cleansed others - the houses, the land and the property of those that were dispossesed. That's roughly how it happened, AFAIK


It's a common pattern - happened to the jews in Germany, the Palestinians in 1948. Ethnic cleansing always has a property element to it.

 

[Spion]

How do you explain all the wars before capitalism then?

they're overwhelmingly over resources either directly by conquering land (and therefore peasants and the tax opportunities that presents) or over how societies are ordered and who gets to rake off the surplus in society.